It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Autogynephilia: The Elephant in the Transgender Bathroom

page: 21
118
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Good god.

Straight outa Daily Caller ...

Here's what Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in 1975:



Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy. Individual privacy, a right of constitutional dimension, is appropriately harmonized with the equality principle.


National Review

Notice that there is NO mention of the words sex or gender in that comment.

Note that the right to privacy is INDEED of a Constitutional dimension but that isn't limited to women, men, and most importantly in regard to THIS argument, it is not restricted for trans* gendered people! North Carolina DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to legislate genital checks for bathroom use!

(PS, she was explaining to Conservatives terrified of the Equal Rights Amendment that all bathrooms wouldn't immediately be "Unisex.")

(PSS: Some things never change.)
edit on 23-5-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted

edit on 23-5-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Funny how you just skipped over my whole point. These non-discrimination laws weren't a problem until they hit the conservative South. It has nothing to do with "irritating the whole world", nor does it have anything to do with "predators in the bathroom", but it does have everything to do with the conservative groups losing their power, and being pissed about it.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you think they fear that the number of incidents of perverts getting in there will increase? Their minds are scary.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

... and then you just did "it" again.

Answer the question directly: Are autogynephiliacs more dangerous than any other person?



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you think they fear that the number of incidents of perverts getting in there will increase? Their minds are scary.


I can't say really.

I'm not sure what the obsession is with what other people are doing in the bathroom.

Or with Trans* folks definitions of their own identities. Or anything related to it.

Just like I could never figure out why they were so obsessed with what gays do in their bedrooms.

I guess we'll see what demographic gets the Right's righteous focus on what happens in the kitchen, next...
edit on 23-5-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Statistics can't be gathered over a 10-year period? Says who?


Yeah, Kayla ... you know if I don't know something about something well then it MUST NOT have existed prior to my awareness.

Pffft. Ten years of statistics. Silly sheeple lady.



Really?? You are going to "team up" with the only other person on these posts that disagrees with me? If you go back and re-read my very first post on this topic, both of you have just made me look prophetic. This is "exactly", what I said would happen if the Politically Correct people started coming out of the wood work. It was expected however, so carry on with your lynch party, and let's get this shindig started.



Now you want to try to tell me that I can't talk to other ATS members?

I missed that obsessiveness initially, or I wouldn't have engaged with you.

Please be reassured ...

No one is talking about you. No one is ganging up on you. Other people are having conversations around you.

But that's okay.


edit on 23-5-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv




These non-discrimination laws weren't a problem until they hit the conservative South.


And where "exactly" is the line drawn from the North to the South? Where is the proof brought this up....and just who are the "conservative South"? Surely, you're not playing the Republican/Democrat game. If so, this conversation is finished. Both sides want you AND me dead. They have both proven it, with every cycle Presidency, ...be it Republican OR Democrat.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Taggart

Yep only in Thailand. No where else are men dressing like woman and presenting themselves as woman to try and trick men into sex for money. Ok..



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Statistics can't be gathered over a 10-year period? Says who?


Yeah, Kayla ... you know if I don't know something about something well then it MUST NOT have existed prior to my awareness.

Pffft. Ten years of statistics. Silly sheeple lady.



Really?? You are going to "team up" with the only other person on these posts that disagrees with me? If you go back and re-read my very first post on this topic, both of you have just made me look prophetic. This is "exactly", what I said would happen if the Politically Correct people started coming out of the wood work. It was expected however, so carry on with your lynch party, and let's get this shindig started.



Now you want to try to tell me that I can't talk to other ATS members?

I missed that obsessiveness initially, or I wouldn't have engaged with you.

Please be reassured ...

No one is talking about you. No one is ganging up on you. Other people are having conversations around you.

But that's okay.



It doesn't really matter, I agree. This site's slogan is to "Deny Ignorance". All one has to do, to see what happened there..Is to re-read for themselves. No harm there right?



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Did I mention Republicans or Democrats?

If you don't know which states are considered conservative southern states, then I can't help you.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Here is the entire piece by Ginsburg for anyone interested in the full context:

Link



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: redhorse

Lawrence's work is about the adoption of a political gender identity. There's a difference.

Beyond that ... you're offering a few study titles as your proof? Goodness.



There are many others, there are more than just "...a few titles" I mentioned that.



originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: redhorse
CIte your studies that indicate that being transgender directly relates to harm and violence.


I never said that.



originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: redhorse
Cite your studies that indicate that having autogynephilia directly relates to harm and violence.


Once again. I never said that. Had to put words in my mouth twice then? Goodness...


originally posted by: Gryphon66CIte your studies that indicate that Blanchard's taxonomy is valid and the research that has been done to support that.


(Going to be kind of difficult, as Blanchard HIMSELF has rephrased his earlier work and has stated that far more research is needed than the surveys he took 20 years ago ... but I look forward to your presentation.)


I already did cite one, and I don't think that there is any number that I could cite that could convince you. Your mind is made up. Recent studies support his work and you are misinterpreting the extent of his ah... rephrasing in order to support your own agenda. Of course more research is needed, that is the nature of research, particularly regarding behavior which is... nebulous to define at best.
edit on 23-5-2016 by redhorse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

Statistics can't be gathered over a 10-year period? Says who?


Yeah, Kayla ... you know if I don't know something about something well then it MUST NOT have existed prior to my awareness.

Pffft. Ten years of statistics. Silly sheeple lady.



Really?? You are going to "team up" with the only other person on these posts that disagrees with me? If you go back and re-read my very first post on this topic, both of you have just made me look prophetic. This is "exactly", what I said would happen if the Politically Correct people started coming out of the wood work. It was expected however, so carry on with your lynch party, and let's get this shindig started.



Just like the prophecy the religious right will be agreeing with the OP.


That's common sense, and can be derived by logic alone. My prediction had to be "actioned" by the PC idiots, that physically "actioned".....what I said would happen.


I guess I can say it can be derived from logic PC idiots do things just like religious idiots on call.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: redhorse

Yeah you did claim everything that I asked you to cite evidence for. Why else would I do so?

I see you're not interested Iin factual discussion. You gave a link to information that didn't work, then you claimed that we should just believe you because you're a psych student, then you provided book titles and article titles and made claims that you can't back up.

We're done.
edit on 23-5-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted

edit on 23-5-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: redhorse

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: redhorse

Lawrence's work is about the adoption of a political gender identity. There's a difference.

Beyond that ... you're offering a few study titles as your proof? Goodness.



There are many others, there are more than just "...a few titles" I mentioned that.



originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: redhorse
CIte your studies that indicate that being transgender directly relates to harm and violence.


I never said that.



originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: redhorse
Cite your studies that indicate that having autogynephilia directly relates to harm and violence.


Once again. I never said that. Had to put words in my mouth twice then? Goodness...


originally posted by: Gryphon66CIte your studies that indicate that Blanchard's taxonomy is valid and the research that has been done to support that.


(Going to be kind of difficult, as Blanchard HIMSELF has rephrased his earlier work and has stated that far more research is needed than the surveys he took 20 years ago ... but I look forward to your presentation.)


I already did cite one, and I don't think that there is any number that I could cite that could convince you. Your mind is made up. Recent studies support his work and you are misinterpreting the extent of his ah... rephrasing in order to support your own agenda. Of course more research is needed, that is the nature of research, particularly regarding behavior which is... nebulous to define at best.


Your articles are all on wiki scholar. None are conclusive most are theoretical working. Do you have others? What you provided is a far cry from making definitive judgments or training for psychologists. These are studies to be aware of. Thats about it.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

Here is the entire piece by Ginsburg for anyone interested in the full context:

Link


Thanks for posting the link -- and thanks for your kind words earlier! I meant to get reply sooner but got a little busy here...



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: redhorse

Yeah you did claim everything that I asked you to cite evidence for. Why else would I do so?



Please demonstrate where I said that people having autogynephilia or those that are transgendered are violent or prone to harming others. I do not remember saying that or implying that the literature said that. I only said that autogynephelia is actually a thing, and that it is associated with transgenderism, because many people were asserting it was not and then you jumped in and jumped down my throat.


originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: redhorse
I see you're not interested Iin factual discussion. You gave a link to information that didn't work, then you claimed that we should just believe you because you're a psych student, then you provided book titles and article titles and made claims that you can't back up.

We're done.


I did not mention that I was a psych student to try to maintain credibility. I mentioned that I am a psych student in order to try to explain why the link didn't work. It is from my school library and if you haven't paid then I guess access is denied. I suspected that was the case, but tried anyway and gave a quote from one of the studies. Also, I provided what information I could (some titles). Although, I will admit that I mentioned how close that I was to my degree in order to try to establish some credibility, so shame on me. However, I did not make up claims and I would think I have provided far more specific information than you have. In that vein I still cannot find where Blanchard has revised his statements as much as you have implied. Could you please point me to that or cite it? Can you back that up since you are apparently so interested in a factual discussion?
edit on 23-5-2016 by redhorse because: Clarity



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: redhorse

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: redhorse

Lawrence's work is about the adoption of a political gender identity. There's a difference.

Beyond that ... you're offering a few study titles as your proof? Goodness.



There are many others, there are more than just "...a few titles" I mentioned that.



originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: redhorse
CIte your studies that indicate that being transgender directly relates to harm and violence.


I never said that.



originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: redhorse
Cite your studies that indicate that having autogynephilia directly relates to harm and violence.


Once again. I never said that. Had to put words in my mouth twice then? Goodness...


originally posted by: Gryphon66CIte your studies that indicate that Blanchard's taxonomy is valid and the research that has been done to support that.


(Going to be kind of difficult, as Blanchard HIMSELF has rephrased his earlier work and has stated that far more research is needed than the surveys he took 20 years ago ... but I look forward to your presentation.)


I already did cite one, and I don't think that there is any number that I could cite that could convince you. Your mind is made up. Recent studies support his work and you are misinterpreting the extent of his ah... rephrasing in order to support your own agenda. Of course more research is needed, that is the nature of research, particularly regarding behavior which is... nebulous to define at best.


Your articles are all on wiki scholar. None are conclusive most are theoretical working. Do you have others? What you provided is a far cry from making definitive judgments or training for psychologists. These are studies to be aware of. Thats about it.


And that's fair. I'm glad that you could find some of them. I am only saying that autogynephilia and Blanchard's claims are not as half-cocked as many here are trying to portray. That was my only point. It's not cut and dried. The psychological community has not dismissed it out of hand, and there is some evidence that there is some truth to it. That was it, and people went bonkers and assumed all sorts of things that I was not trying to say. Attacked me, albeit in sneaky passive aggressive ways (including you) and were ridiculously defensive. If that doesn't say world's about how entrenched people are in their positions regarding this "debate" I don't know what does.

Here are some more. Please note, (for goodness sake) I am NOT making any claims about autogynephilia or transgenders and violence, or depression, or transgenders being sexual predators, or being more intelligent and gentle, or anything. I am only pointing out that the literature is not as one sided as many are trying to say or would like to think. That's it.

Edited to Add two more articles and:

Also, I think I have comparatively gone above and beyond what anyone else here has done to try to illustrate my rather milk toast point (that got everyone so silly and angry), so this is it. I'm not putting any more articles up. There does come a point when maybe people should dip a toe into doing their own research.

(Kind of off topic but an interesting twin study that lends some credibility to the idea that there are neurobiological differences in the brains of transgender people) Discordant Transsexualism in Male Monozygotic Twins: Neuroanatomical and Psychological Differences

The 'auto' (self) in autogynephilic transsexualism. (A quote from the article below which may explain some of the, frankly reactionary and sometimes nearly irrational push back).


A theory claiming that some MtF trans-exuals are fundamentally motivated to pursue SRS and live as women due to an unusual erotic interest is understandably difficult to comprehend and upsetting to trans individuals who find it invalidating to their sense of self and identity (Moser, 2010).


Besides the above quote, this is a good article based upon data collected from 249 narratives that paint a rather complex picture of transsexuals and autogynephilia.


edit on 23-5-2016 by redhorse because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-5-2016 by redhorse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: PeterH

Apparently your unaware of a subject called ethics. It falls under philosophy. Thats an academic disciplines older than Christianity. In that discipline you debate and consider morality based in reason. In religion you do it because it says so in many cases without the dialogue and without thought. Some religions are better than others at giving methodology but most of these southern states (I live in) have a lowbrow version of Christianity. Most people I bring up say Aquinas, Anselm, Basil etc have no idea what I am talking about.


Wrong. Morality cannot be arrived at by reason. It's actually the reverse. Your moral values inform what you view as rational and irrational behaviour, either of yourself or of others.

Morality sets the goals and restricts the means by which you may attain them. Reason finds the best means within those restrictions, to reach those goals.

That is to say, morality is the standard for rationality.

That is why sometimes some things that some people find rational, others find irrational.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fishy

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: PeterH

Apparently your unaware of a subject called ethics. It falls under philosophy. Thats an academic disciplines older than Christianity. In that discipline you debate and consider morality based in reason. In religion you do it because it says so in many cases without the dialogue and without thought. Some religions are better than others at giving methodology but most of these southern states (I live in) have a lowbrow version of Christianity. Most people I bring up say Aquinas, Anselm, Basil etc have no idea what I am talking about.


Wrong. Morality cannot be arrived at by reason. It's actually the reverse. Your moral values inform what you view as rational and irrational behaviour, either of yourself or of others.

Morality sets the goals and restricts the means by which you may attain them. Reason finds the best means within those restrictions, to reach those goals.

That is to say, morality is the standard for rationality.

That is why sometimes some things that some people find rational, others find irrational.


I disagree completely. Your confusing cultural learning with rational thought.

Morality is discussed extensively by philosophers throughout history. Some religious others not. These philosophical discussions on morality are what has lead to the structure of society and the direction of the social contract. Take the Republic for instance. It is a moral guide derived from philosophical discussions. Same as two Treaties for gov or the constitution for that matter.




top topics



 
118
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join